In the world of politics, energy is all too often around building shiny new power stations – whether gas or nuclear. Rather more positively it is about renewables – erecting wind or solar farms, and wind arrays off-shore.

Just recently, with Lib Dems in Government and in charge of DECC, we’ve got rather more sophisticated. Nowadays we also think about the demand side of the equation. Why not spread demand more evenly and avoid having to build all that expensive excess capacity? Or even better, increase energy efficiency to such a degree that we don’t need to generate so much power and heat in the first place.

But there is one area that has been left out of our energy debate almost completely, and some estimate that it already accounts for up to 14% of our energy usage. What is it? It is ‘cold’.

At a time when we rightly worry about the fuel poor in our society we sometimes forget that with temperatures rising and with it the demand for air conditioning, increased demand for chilled foods, imported ultra-cold liquefied gas, and low storage temperatures for medical supplies and similar sensitive products, the demand for cooling rather than heating is growing apace.

And it’s not just a UK or rich world issue. The scandal is that some 30% of the world’s food production is grown but never consumed. In our developed world the culprit is waste from use-by dates, and throwing away what’s filled our fridges for too many weeks.

But in developing countries it is because food is lost either due to spoiling by infestation, but just as importantly because it spoils before reaching its market. That’s due to a lack of cooling and temperature control.

So, as someone that was involved in refrigerated supply chains in my industrial career, and Lib Dem spokesperson in the Lords on energy and climate change, I was pleased to be asked by the University of Birmingham to chair a new commission they are setting up. It will look at the whole area of ‘cold’ in the energy mix and giving it the better profile it demands.

Over the next six months the commission, made up of industrialists, academics, experts on international development, and energy professionals, will look at how we can make the cold chain far more efficient and climate friendly.

We will be seeing how all the vast and wasted energy that derives from turning liquefied gas back into – well – gas, is captured and reused. We will be focusing on how we can help rural farmers in developing nations get their goods to market in a condition that boosts their income. Not least we will be looking to give UK industry a head start in this new world of increasing demand for cold.

The whole climate change agenda that we as Lib Dems champion means that we have to look not just at decarbonising our energy, but making its use as efficient as possible. Factoring in our need for cold as well as heat is going to be an increasingly important factor in that efficiency equation.

* Robin Teverson is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/robin-teverson-writes-doing-cold-smarter-45062.html/feed7Ed Davey writes … Warmer, cheaper, greener homes for people in rented propertieshttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-writes-warmer-cheaper-greener-homes-for-people-in-rented-properties-44568.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-writes-warmer-cheaper-greener-homes-for-people-in-rented-properties-44568.html#commentsFri, 06 Feb 2015 09:05:47 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=44568Today marks a landmark achievement for Lib Dems in government. Up to 1 million tenants renting energy inefficient leaky homes will be able to benefit from new regulations and so enjoy warmer homes and cheaper energy bills. Clearly this will particularly help the fuel poor: those living in the leakiest privately-rented homes already need to spend an average £1,000 a year more to keep warm compared to the average home.

These new regulations will deliver two important changes:

From April 2018 private landlords will not be able to rent out properties which do not meet minimum energy efficiency standards; and

From April 2016 residential private landlords can’t unreasonably turn down a tenant’s request for energy efficiency improvements. This will mean landlords have to accept the request if they can get help through widely available support like Green Deal finance, the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO), or grants from the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund.

Let’s remember that these changes would not have happened naturally – out of the goodness of landlords’ hearts. It’s Lib Dems in government pushing for these regulations that has made them a reality. And let’s just say that not everyone on the blue side of the Coalition had these proposals in the top of the in-tray.

It’s also important that these changes to improve energy efficiency are not seen in isolation. While Labour will head into the General Election flogging a completely discredited policy of an energy price freeze, we will be able to say that thanks to the competition Lib Dems improved last year, the Big 6 froze their bills, and this year they are cutting bills. While I want to see the Big 6 go further, it’s already clear what Labour’s price freeze would deliver for consumers – higher bills.

But cuts to energy bills are not enough: major improvements in energy efficiency is the only way to provide people with permanently warmer homes and permanently cheaper bills.

The Green Deal has had its detractors, but it’s worked alongside our other new regulation on big energy firms – ECO – to insulate 1 million homes in the space of just two years. We have also introduced the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund which has already helped people install more than 13,000 measures like wall insulation and new boilers.

Next comes the publication of our Fuel Poverty Strategy. This will set out a comprehensive and long-term plan to help those living in drafty homes and paying over the odds for their electricity and gas.

But, when it comes to warming homes and keeping bills down for good, we’re not done yet. Our election pitch will include a greater emphasis on energy saving with a Council tax discount for home energy efficiency improvements, even tougher energy efficiency targets for rented homes and tougher zero carbon homes targets in a Green Homes Bill.

Saving energy has been our top priority – and our policies delivered 1 million homes better insulated. And new regulation to benefit a million tenants in the next three years. In our election manifesto we’ll take that focus on energy efficiency to another level. Warmer, Cheaper, Greener.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-writes-warmer-cheaper-greener-homes-for-people-in-rented-properties-44568.html/feed2Davey: Stop short-termist meddling in the energy marketshttp://www.libdemvoice.org/davey-stop-shorttermist-meddling-in-the-energy-markets-44208.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/davey-stop-shorttermist-meddling-in-the-energy-markets-44208.html#commentsThu, 15 Jan 2015 09:01:14 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=44208The FT reports comments by Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey aimed in part at George Osborne over recent interventions by the chancellor into the energy market:

George Osborne has been accused by a cabinet colleague of damaging the energy sector after the chancellor threatened “action” against companies which failed to pass on falling oil prices to consumers.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, said he did not know exactly what Mr Osborne was proposing and that such criticism of energy companies by politicians would “damage markets, investment and our economy”.

In an interview with the Financial Times Mr Davey said that competition was the key to driving down energy prices and that the Competition and Markets Authority was already holding an inquiry to tackle any remaining problems in the energy market.

Eon became the first big energy company in the UK to cut fuel tariffs in response to falling global oil prices, announcing an immediate 3.5 per cent reduction in its standard gas price.

However, it is clear from the fuller quote of Davey’s remarks that he has Ed Miliband in his sights, too — Voice readers will recall that he has been scathing about Labour’s proposals on this site before. Here’s what he told the FT:

“I think British business, British industry and British investors would like politicians to think more strategically and think about the longer term,” he said. “And if they interfere and meddle for short-term headlines, that is only going to damage markets and investment and our economy.”

Indeed given the dramatic falls in wholesale prices seen recently, which are now beginning to feed through to household prices, Labour’s “price freeze” looks more foolish by the day, as Iain Martin points out:

Our energy bill has just fallen dramatically. V glad it wasn’t frozen at old rate as Mili E demanded.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/davey-stop-shorttermist-meddling-in-the-energy-markets-44208.html/feed12LibLink: Ed Davey promises no blackouts this winterhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-ed-davey-promises-no-blackouts-this-winter-43084.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-ed-davey-promises-no-blackouts-this-winter-43084.html#commentsMon, 27 Oct 2014 16:03:06 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=43084Interviewed in the Sunday Telgraph, Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said that he had asked the energy regulators for extra contingency measures to cut consumption in event of a cold winter or more power station failures.

Emergency plans will be announced tomorrow in which hotels will be paid to turn down refrigerators and factories paid to make staff work overnight to cut energy consumption and prevent blackouts this winter.

Ed Davey said:

We have demand-side contingencies. We have had them for a long time, but they wanted – quite rightly – to see if we could increase that.

And some companies would change their behaviour, voluntarily, and be recompensed for it. Turning down their refrigerators by a degree, or changing a shift pattern for a week so staff come in earlier. The idea is to move factory production away from peak energy demand periods.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-ed-davey-promises-no-blackouts-this-winter-43084.html/feed34Opinion: Generating electricity – why we should push for renewables, not frackinghttp://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-generating-electricity-renewables-not-fracking-42074.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-generating-electricity-renewables-not-fracking-42074.html#commentsMon, 18 Aug 2014 07:15:11 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=42074This article is about how we generate electricity in the UK, and makes the case for electricity generation to be 100% carbon-neutral, and to be frack-free.

Climate change remains one of the greatest risks of our age. We know that the climate is changing: we can either accept the risks and take what comes, or we can mitigate the risk by using technology to end our dependency on fossil fuels. Liberal Democrats campaign for the latter.

In 2013, figures for the UK and the whole EU for electricity generation are as follows:

On these figures, we have some catching up to do. Many would think that given the particular advantages of wind and tides our islands have, we would be doing more than catching up – we would be leading.

For the moment, though, we are trying to catch up. Renewables accounted for 11% of electricity in 2012, up to 15% in 2013. The EU average is 24% and Denmark, for example, generates 33% of its energy from wind. The potential for further development of renewables in the UK is considerable.

Vince Cable’s industrial strategy is supporting technology development for offshore wind and nuclear, and, within the Catapult Programme, tidal energy. The UK is developing new renewable technologies – thanks to Lib Dems in government.

So how should we look at the headlong rush into fracking? We use gas in two different and separate ways: the first for the generation of electricity in the UK; and the second for the use of gas for direct heating within homes and businesses. This article does not deal with the latter, which is a different discussion.

Taking the arguments for fracked gas to generate UK electricity, I note three points. First, security of supply within the UK; second, cheap price; third, keeping the lights on. I will discuss them in relation to choices between the different ways of making electricity.

Security of supply: the UK wants its energy to come from within the UK and not rely on imports. Replacing our current gas and coal usage with renewables – for example, at an extra 4% per year – would give us security of supply, but there needs to be a powerful political will to change to renewables.

Cheap price: Fracked gas is said to be cheap, but whether it really will be in the UK is a different matter. The most likely outcome is that it is a similar price to other gas. Onshore wind is expected to be the same price as gas within a few years, and coal remains cheap.

Keeping the lights on: Fracked gas will not come on-stream for a few years, and by then government can equally have brought on-stream more renewables. The argument for fracking is particularly persuasive only if government fails to increase renewables.

Finally, I want to make a political point.

Liberal Democrats are rightly wary of fracking. We remain a green party. We have of necessity agreed compromises within the Coalition with a Conservative Party that has a very different attitude both to climate change and to fracking.

We do not need to fight the General Election on a compromise. So let us be much more uncompromising about fracking, and where, how and if it fits into our energy policy for the next parliament and beyond.

* William Hobhouse is on the board of Liberal Reform and is co-founder of the Lib Dem Campaign for Manufacturing.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-generating-electricity-renewables-not-fracking-42074.html/feed80Don Foster MP writes… Justifiable NIMBYism?http://www.libdemvoice.org/don-foster-mp-writesjustifiable-nimbyism-41879.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/don-foster-mp-writesjustifiable-nimbyism-41879.html#commentsWed, 30 Jul 2014 11:15:11 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=41879I suspect I’m not the only one to be delighted and relieved about the announcement this week about new protections to be put in place that will restrict “Fracking” in sensitive areas.

Geological evidence shows that fracking could lead to a significant disruption to the hot water spring waters on which the tourism of the World Heritage City of Bath depends and could damage the water pressure without which we could see buildings in the city collapse.

Even though the latest British Geological Survey Maps show that the three main areas where large amounts of shale oil and gas exists lie nowhere near the city, it’s reassuring that the new protections offered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) would set a high hurdle before fracking could be considered near Bath.

Other parts of the country deserve similar protections; not just World Heritage Sites, but also National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding National Beauty. And that’s what Ed Davey has secured.

But I actually agree with the rationale for the exploration of shale gas and oil as long as it’s done in a responsible way.

Liberal Democrats in government have already made huge progress in bringing on more renewable power, but for the next few decades as we reduce energy supplies from coal and are still building up green energy supplies, we’ll still need a lot of gas. So, the question is where should we get it from? It’s not a green policy to say yes to increasing imports from as far away as Qatar when potentially home-grown gas could add to the mix.

And we also have to consider energy security. The more “home-grown” energy we have, the less dependent we are on supplies from potentially unreliable sources.

That’s why fracking – done in a responsible way – could be so important.

Despite opposition, Ed Davey has secured major new protections that will ensure a responsible approach to any licencing regime for fracking.

As I see it, Ed has secured three key protections;

1- As part of the initial application process, DECC will require the ‘Statement of Environmental Awareness’ to be particularly comprehensive when it comes to sensitive areas or areas adjacent to them. Unless DECC is satisfied the application will be rejected.
2- The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) will publish new planning guidance. It is clear that applications in these areas will be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances and that it is in the public interest.
3 -If planning is refused, and a developer appeals, DCLG can now ‘call in the case’ and ensure the new planning guidance has been applied correctly.

Ed has successfully struck the right balance between justified NIMBYISM and national need.

On Saturday, while much of the country was enjoying the sunshine, I spent two hours studying and listening to The Right Honourable Edward Davey MP FRSA.

In the wonderful surroundings of the new headquarters of Amnesty International, Ed addressed the Social Liberal Forum conference on “Energy and climate change – the balance between state and market”. He was then interviewed by four bloggers: Jonathan Calder, Matthew Hulbert, Caron Lindsay and myself.

My feelings during all this were similar to when Steve Webb addressed a local party supper club. I was thinking “Hey, this guy is doing fantastic, long-term stuff. Why the heck haven’t I heard about it before?”.

Ed has the features of a bulldog – a big barrel chest, a thick-set neck and determined, prominent jawline. He certainly has the determination of a bull terrier, shown in the way he pursues his objectives. There, the canine similarities end. Ed has a brilliant mind, and dazzles with a stunning recall of impressive facts, figures and arguments. In the interview, he turned a positively cherubic countenance to his questioners as he listened intently to the questions. I can imagine him going down well with civil servants in his department. He’s an extremely skilful Secretary of State.

Overall, Ed gave an exceptionally compelling narrative on the remarkable job being done by the government to fight climate change. I know this article could be accused of sounding like “Pravda” (and by all means balance it by reading Quentin Letts’ ludicrous piece on him), but I was genuinely very impressed by Ed and the work he is doing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, as usual, I am a sucker for punishment, so I look forward to your comments.

Here is a couple of the key points which came up during the talk and interview, and then a load more will follow in a “part two” article later (which will include Ed’s thoughts on the thorny topic of nuclear power):

Investment in carbon reduction

The key line which stood out, for me, is that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is putting in more investment than the rest of the government put together. There has been a trebling of renewables powering the electricity grid.

The balance between state and market

The key point Ed made was that there is a need for a finely balanced approach. The binary, one/zero, black/white debate between government intervention and total non-intervention is pointless. There are three main areas, and each demands markedly different approaches: 1) Decarbonisation 2) Energy security and 3) Energy prices. The questions we should be asking are: Which type of intervention is suitable in each situation? Where and when? Is fostering competition the right approach? Or creating new markets? Or actual regulation, for example: emissions performance standards for coal power stations?

The bottom line, Ed said, is that the government must intervene to achieve our energy and climate goals.

* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist in Newbury and West Berkshire. He is part of the Liberal Democrat Voice team and blogs at Liberal Burblings.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-41707.html/feed19Ed Davey MP writes…Investing in green energyhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writesinvesting-in-green-energy-41611.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writesinvesting-in-green-energy-41611.html#commentsThu, 17 Jul 2014 20:15:45 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=41611Today I published the Government’s first ever ‘Energy Investment Report’. It shows how Liberal Democrats in Government have delivered on jobs and investment in energy – particularly green energy – and shows the plan we now have for this to continue for decades to come.

Let me be clear – investment in the energy sector has not been a ‘nice to have’. We inherited a legacy of energy underinvestment from Labour and we’ve spent the last four years turning this around. The sheer scale of the investment has already been huge: between 2010 and 2013 we’ve secured £45 billion of investment in electricity generation and networks alone. The UK’s future energy infrastructure investment is larger than transport, communications and water spending combined.

While I’m sure you’ll be interested in reading every word of the entire report, you may want to start with what we’ve achieved on renewable electricity.

A few facts:

Since 2010, an average £7 billion a year has been invested in renewable energy. This compares to £3 billion a year in the previous parliament.

Electricity generation from renewable sources has doubled since 2010 and now supplies 15% of the UK’s electricity.

Earlier this year, eight renewable energy projects got contracts providing up to £12 billion of private sector investment and up to 8,000 jobs

The UK is the world leader in offshore wind and we have more than any other country. This supports up to 18,000 jobs. By 2020 we could see offshore wind powering almost 7 million homes.

Onshore wind has attracted £7.6 billion of investment between 2010 and 2013 and supports 17,000 jobs.

While these facts speak for themselves, we can’t be complacent. We’ve put in place the necessary reforms and now Ernst & Young rank the UK as one of the best places in the world for renewables investment. But we know that there are threats from the right, particularly on onshore wind, and from the Labour Party with their energy price freeze policy. Their policy not only threatens the competition to the Big 6 that we’ve encouraged, but also investors who currently see the UK as a great place to invest.

Be in no doubt. The Liberal Democrats have the strongest green energy record of any political party and Britain is now on track to beat our renewable electricity targets for 2020.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writesinvesting-in-green-energy-41611.html/feed34Are the Greens to the Lib Dems what Ukip is to the Tories?http://www.libdemvoice.org/are-the-greens-to-the-lib-dems-what-ukip-is-to-the-tories-41440.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/are-the-greens-to-the-lib-dems-what-ukip-is-to-the-tories-41440.html#commentsTue, 08 Jul 2014 15:20:20 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=41440“As Ukip is to the Tories, so can the Green party be to the Lib Dems.” That’s a sentence I wrote here, almost seven years ago, on 3rd November, 2007.

In The Times, Sam Coates has looked at how the quiet rise of the Greens in recent months – the party polled just ahead of the Lib Dems in May’s European elections – might hurt the Lib Dems at the May 2015 general election.

An analysis of the European election results shows the Green vote strengthening and consolidating in the southwest and parts of Scotland while Lib Dem votes drain away. Demographic groups who once supported Mr Clegg’s party are becoming more favourable to the Greens. The analysis suggests that Lib Dem support is weakening among the young, old, urban, rural, poor, middle class and wealthy, and Greens are advancing in these categories, particularly among 18 to 24-year-olds.

Senior Lib Dems acknowledge that the Greens’ policy platform — which embraces higher public spending, opposes nuclear power and fracking, and pledges to scrap tuition fees — bears a strong resemblance to the Lib Dem manifesto of 2005. The Lib Dems have meanwhile switched positions on these symbolic, easily understood issues. They are also likely to lose their status as the protest-vote party for centre-left voters because of the coalition.

While there is little chance of the Greens taking any additional seats beyond their existing one, there are fears of a Ukip-style effect where they take enough votes from the Lib Dems to hand the seat to the challenger — often the Conservatives in the southwest. One senior Lib Dem said that the party was taking the Greens “not terribly” seriously but added: “Even the loss of 1 per cent or 2 per cent in a marginal seat can be costly.”

Five of the Lib Dems’ ten most marginal seats are in the southwest. They played down the threat, saying that the grassroots organisation of the Greens was “pretty feeble”. A source said: “We must have a clear green appeal in 2015 but not fret about the Green Party.”

The paper quotes Ian Warren, a political analyst and author of the @election-data blog, commenting: “In the southwest the Lib Dems are the effective opposition to the Conservatives and, come the general election I suspect many of the 2014 Greens will revert to type and go Lib Dem. However, many of them won’t, and how they break will determine the outcome. The Greens and Ukip provide a space on the ballot paper for these disaffected Lib Dems.”

I think the Lib Dems have made the right decisions in government — taking a scientific and cautious approach to fracking, recognising new-build nuclear power is a necessary and cleaner part of our energy mix — but there’s no doubt this pragmatism has hurt us with those who want to ban fracking and no more nuclear power. The party is right neither to over-estimate the Greens’ national appeal at general elections, nor to dismiss the threat. Marginal constituencies, by their very nature, are decided at the margins.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from May 2007 to Jan 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/are-the-greens-to-the-lib-dems-what-ukip-is-to-the-tories-41440.html/feed97The Independent View: Smart policy is backing smart energyhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-smart-policy-is-backing-smart-energy-40931.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-smart-policy-is-backing-smart-energy-40931.html#commentsTue, 17 Jun 2014 09:32:09 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=40931Energy policy continues to be central to the political agenda and on consumers’ minds, with the average energy bill now topping £1300 and more than 2 million homes living in fuel poverty.

Research published this week by the Smart Meter Central Delivery Body shows the extent of current dissatisfaction with the way we buy energy. More than half of the 10,000 respondents to our independent survey said they do not trust any energy supplier, while 41% think they are paying for more energy that they consume. Worryingly, those in low income and vulnerable groups expressed the most anxiety about their bills.

But here’s the silver lining. The research showed that much of this dissatisfaction stems from the current metering systems most of us still have in our homes, based on increasingly out-of-date technologies. Current meters rely on physical meter readings, and very often consumers receive estimated bills. As people don’t have sight of what they’re spending day-by-day, it’s difficult to manage household budgets and can be a big shock when the bill drops onto the mat. More than a third of people (36%) do not understand their energy bills and a similar number (37%) do not think that the bills that they receive are accurate. Worse, many consumers even told us they will switch to pre-pay meters, in the full knowledge that they are more expensive, because they have no other way of managing what they spend.

The national smart meter roll-out will transform the current situation and put power back in the hands of consumers. Smart meters will accurately capture energy use and present the information clearly to consumers in pounds and pence. The information and knowledge provided by these connected devices will empower consumers to understand what they are consuming and what it costs, and so make quicker and easier decisions about the right tariff and supplier for them.

There are already nearly 400,000 smart meters in homes around the country, and the roll-out programme will accelerate during the course of this year and next.

One of the key objectives of this transformation is to ensure that low income and vulnerable individuals, those who face the greatest challenges with energy bills, benefit from smart meters as quickly as possible. Energy Secretary Ed Davey has called on energy suppliers to focus on pre-payment meter (PPM) customers during the roll-out, and to aim to start installing these ‘pay as you go’ smart meters by the end of 2016.

And smart meters will make it easier for everyone to keep a close eye on how much energy they’re using. In many areas of environmental policy there is a necessary payoff between tackling climate change and lowering consumers’ bills – not so for the smart meter roll-out. By 2019 the programme will ‘break even’ and be having a positive impact on consumer bills by making our energy infrastructure more efficient and helping avoid waste. No more necks craned under the stairs to read meters, and far fewer complaints about bills. It’s hard to see how any reform of the energy market can be fully effective without fully empowered consumers playing their part – smart meters will give them the information they need to take control.

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email voice@libdemvoice.org if you are interested in contributing.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-smart-policy-is-backing-smart-energy-40931.html/feed6Ed Davey MP writes… An onshore wind cap makes no sensehttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writes-an-onshore-wind-cap-makes-no-sense-39411.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writes-an-onshore-wind-cap-makes-no-sense-39411.html#commentsFri, 18 Apr 2014 08:00:38 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=39411Rarely a week goes by without an onshore wind story appearing in the media – normally negative, with some Conservative source trying to undermine this important source of renewable energy. The past few weeks have been no different.

First, let’s set the record straight. Liberal Democrats in Government will not accept a cap on onshore wind. Of course what other parties choose to put in their manifestos is a matter for them. But this Coalition Government is not changing tack on onshore wind or renewables and we will not lose focus or rewrite policy.

Second, let’s remind ourselves of how successful we’ve been with onshore wind and renewable energy more generally. There is now enough onshore wind to power 4 million homes and since 2010 my Department has seen developers announce £4.6 billion worth of new investment, which could support over 7,700 jobs. Many of these ‘green jobs’ are highly skilled, well paid, and are spread across the UK.

Wind energy in one day earlier this year provided nearly 17% of the UK’s electricity, with renewable electricity as a whole more than doubling its contribution since the last election: with the current investment pipeline we will beat our 2020 targets for renewable electricity.

Third, onshore wind is also one of the cheapest large-scale renewables so we are now able to cut our support rates – a sign of policy success. Last year they were cut by 10%, and as the costs continue to fall we will move to auctions to ensure that market forces set prices and only the cheapest projects will be agreed, at least cost to consumers.

Fourth, we’ve made huge strides to ensure that communities have a greater say in the planning process and it is now compulsory for them to be involved in pre-planning application consultation. Community benefits have also been massively increased – from £1,000 per Megawatt (MW) to £5,000 per MW per year, for the whole life of the project. What could that mean for a community? One that agreed a 20MW wind farm could receive benefits worth £100,000 per year. It is of course up to communities and developers to work out how best to use the money, but for example, at the Meikle Carewe windfarm near Aberdeen, people are getting £122 off their annual electricity bills.

So, that’s where we are, but why shouldn’t we cap it in the future? For three reasons:

1) Cost to consumers: as onshore wind is one of the cheapest large-scale renewables, a cap would mean we would have to plug the gap with a more expensive replacement. This would increase consumer bills. This point was made strongly in a recent report by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) who estimated that plugging an onshore wind ‘gap’ with offshore wind could cost an additional £300,000 per turbine per year.

2) Energy Security: at a time when Russia is issuing threats about supplying gas to Europe, energy security is front of mind for all. We are making huge progress by increasing our ‘home-grown’ energy sources, so it makes no sense to put a stop to the cheapest “home-grown” renewable technology – unless you want to reduce pressure on Putin.

3) Flexibility: our whole approach to moving towards home-grown low carbon energy is that we should remain ‘technology neutral’. The recent report from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change was clear on leaving all low carbon options for policymakers – given the gravity of the climate change threat, it would be environmentally irresponsible to take a key option like onshore wind off the table.

So, let’s remember that while there will always be a healthy debate about which form of energy works best, whether it’s good value for money and where it should be located, the best way to boost energy security, tackle climate change and do it an affordable way is to continue with a balanced mix, with onshore wind playing a key role.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writes-an-onshore-wind-cap-makes-no-sense-39411.html/feed25Edward Davey writes… Gas profitshttp://www.libdemvoice.org/edward-davey-writes-gas-profits-38174.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/edward-davey-writes-gas-profits-38174.html#commentsMon, 10 Feb 2014 19:05:45 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=38174Last year I asked Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) & the new Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to start producing annual competition assessments which will look at the way energy companies operate in detail. They will also set out any actions they deem necessary.

The first of their reviews will be published this Spring and I have just written to them outlining new evidence I want to be considered as part of their investigations.

Essentially the new evidence focuses on the profits some energy companies are making on supplying household gas. This is different from the recent debate on energy markets which has concentrated almost entirely on electricity. We’ve taken action and Ofgem has pushed competition in this area. And the reform of electricity markets seems to be the only area that Labour focuses on. So, my team’s analysis on gas is a new development.

You may have heard energy suppliers justifying profits by saying they are generally in line with those made by the large supermarkets. The analysis I have put to the regulators shows a rather different picture. What do the figures show?

Firstly, the average profit the Big 6 are making on supplying household gas is 6.7%, more than three times what they make on supplying electricity (1.8%). Some – British Gas and SSE – are actually making more than 11%, more than 5 times the average electricity profit and more than double the typical supermarket profit. If the profits were brought into line with those being made on electricity then consumers would see an average £40 come off their annual bills. This has to be looked at and explained.

Secondly there is an issue with ‘market share’. One supplier – British Gas – has more than 40% of the market when it comes to supplying household gas. While Lib Dems in government have made it far easier to switch – and more than 1million consumers did exactly that in the last 2 months of 2013 – British Gas retains a huge share of customers, many of them from when they had the gas supply monopoly.

Lastly there is the question of what the Big 6 charge their customers for gas. For example, if British Gas was amongst the cheapest out there, then consumers could legitimately ask ‘so what?’ Actually, British Gas has been at the highest end of the market for the last few years.

It is of course now down to the regulators to decide how they take this forward. If they find this issue merits further investigation, and find any company with a monopoly power resulting in consumers getting ripped off, they can take action. They can look to break them up, or introduce other measures to resolve the issue quickly.

What is clear is that Lib Dems in Government are determined to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. The first Annual Competition Assessment is ‘looking at the books’ of the Big 6, and I want today’s new evidence to support their work. But already we’ve forced the energy companies to simplify tariffs, introduced more competition by doubling the number of smaller players and we’re looking to slash the time it takes to switch supplier.

Compare this to Labour’s offer: a temporary price fix that would result in suppliers hiking up prices both before and after and some ideas about getting rid of vertical integration in electricity, an issue that has no relevance to the gas market.

Rather than the fantasy of economically illiterate policies of Labour, the Coalition has acted fast to take an average £50 off bills and introduced real competition. Today’s news should be welcomed by consumers across the UK.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/edward-davey-writes-gas-profits-38174.html/feed13Energy: What Lib Dem members think about the price freeze and new nuclear power station dealhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/energy-members-survey-37631.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/energy-members-survey-37631.html#commentsSat, 28 Dec 2013 10:30:38 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=37631Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 750 party members responded – thank you – and we’re publishing the full results.Would you support or oppose the following policies…?

64% oppose energy price freeze

… Freezing energy prices for 20 months from May 2015, while reviewing the regulation of energy companies

French/Chinese finance for new nuclear power station supported by 56% to 36%

The government has recently signed a deal with French energy company EDF and a Chinese energy firm to build a new nuclear power station in Somerset, the first new nuclear power station in Britain since 1995. Do you support or oppose the decision to build a new nuclear power station?

56% – Support
36% – Oppose
8% – Don’t know

Here are a sample of your comments…

* If you’re serious about reducing carbon footprint, nuclear has to be part of the solution.
* have severe doubts about involvement with foreign state-owned enterprises, especially when the country concerned is a one-party dictatorship
* Support only as a ‘bridge’ until more renewables are available. The cost was extravagent, however.
* Reluctantly support
* Nuclear is vital part of a balanced nil carbon supply future. We need more
* Unless we take dramatic action to reduce demand for energy (and such action will not be palatable to Labour or the Conservatives), we have to increase energy supply quickly to avoid power cuts and economic damage. Renewable technologies, whilst part of the solution, are not yet capable of supplying all our needs.
* It won’t help with the coming supply crisis and incurs more unquantifiable liabilities.
* It is a disgrace it is not British owned or nationalised.
* We need a mix of energy sources to keep the lights on
* What is the long term cost to the environment?
* I have serious reservations about the relationship between China’s autocratic government and its relationship with the UK ih this role. It seems to me that there are potentially serious issues about security here.
* Pity the six main companies aren’t interested in investing. I happy with the French but not the Chinese.
* No one has presented any alternatives in terms of power generated and cost and resources required

Almost half party members say minimum price guarantee for nuclear backers “unacceptable”

As part of the deal the government has promised to pay a minimum price for the electricity generated that is above the current wholesale price of energy. This will ensure the companies make back the money they are investing in building the power station. Do you think this is acceptable or unacceptable?

38% – Acceptable
48% – Unacceptable
14% – Don’t know

Here are a sample of your comments…

* This is a subsidy the party claimed it would never agree to.
* It’s very hard to say. I disagree with the way the market is structured, so I can’t really give a definitive answer.
* If this isn’t a subsidy I don’t know what is…
* The principle is OK but the price is too high.
* Energy including nulear is becoming more expensive. In due course this will appear to be a good deal.
* plenty of subsidy to sweeten deals for overseas corporations who have no stake in the success of British civil society, but cuts to the services which actually make up UK civil society
* The principle is acceptable, but the price agreed is ridiculously high.
* Guaranteed strike prices are one of the few options available for making the building of new power stations financially viable. The alternative is for the state to build the stations, and this country can not afford that expense (thank you Labour!)
* If the risks are so complex that the market cannot price them the state should be funding project itself rather than accepting such a premium.
* Building nuclear power stations is expensive !
* If the Government are going to guarantee private companies a profit they may as well just fund the build directly themselves as Government debt will be cheaper than private companies borrowing to build the nuclear plant and they are not even taking any commercial risk.
* In our world they can’t supply power for free or at a loss.
* If nuclear was a commercial option there would be new nuclear in the US.
* Not over the moon about it, but presumably unavoidable.
* One of the worst decisions of this government, and led by a Liberal Democrat. Truly appalling!
* There should be no subsidy for Nuclear, as voted on by conference. Ed davy and co do not listen to Conference.
* It would have been more sensible to go for a build/ operate deal, with government borrowing to fund the build.
* It is correct that they should make their money back but I think that the minimum price offered is too high.
* Only acceptable for a mature technology if future spot prices expected to be higher. Fixing a minimum price, however, is a necessary government commitment for all energy investment in the UK.
* Acceptable in principle but I think the figure may be too high.

1,500 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. 749 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 14th and 18th December.

Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past offered accurate guides to what party members think.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from May 2007 to Jan 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-ed-milband-energy-price-freeze-36935.html/feed48Ed Davey MP writes… Hinkley Point C – a big step forward for energy decarbonisationhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeshinkley-point-c-a-big-step-forward-for-energy-decarbonisation-36852.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeshinkley-point-c-a-big-step-forward-for-energy-decarbonisation-36852.html#commentsMon, 21 Oct 2013 10:59:44 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=36852Today I announced that we have reached an outline commercial agreement with EDF to build the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset.

I know this will cause a wide range of reactions within the party. Most will welcome this very significant step forward in our plans to decarbonise our energy sector. A substantial minority I know will be disappointed. Before outlining the terms of what I believe is a good deal for the British consumer let me repeat what I said at the Glasgow conference as to why I have changed my mind and now believe that nuclear has a role to play in our energy mix.

At the moment 40% of our electricity comes from dirty coal power stations and 20% from nuclear power stations. Over the next ten years or so we expect almost all of those coal power stations to close along with all but one of our existing nuclear power stations. When Hinkley Point C opens in 2023 over half of our generation capacity will be from plants which do not currently exist. That is a massive investment challenge and it is simply unrealistic to expect all that to come from renewable energy and we do not want it all to come from gas. To generate as much electricity as Hinkley Point C, around 7% of total UK electricity generation, we would need to cover the area of West Sussex with 6000 wind turbines or the area of Kent with solar panels. And we would still need a lot of back up gas power plants as we will not have cost effective storage or interconnection capacity by then. I just do not think that is realistic So if we are to decarbonise and keep the lights on we have to have nuclear as part of our energy mix.

So how does the Hinkley Point C deal avoid the mistakes of the past. Firstly, the deal we have structured means that consumers will not pay a penny more for electricity if the construction cost of the power station is higher than envisaged. But if the cost is less then consumers will pay less. Secondly we have ensured that the cost of decommissioning the nuclear power plant is included in the price and EDF will start paying towards that as soon as they start generating. So we will not have the situation we have had with the old nuclear power stations where the taxpayer is left to pick up the bill. The price we have negotiated, £89.50 per MWh, is less than any other large scale low carbon generation technology such as onshore wind, offshore wind or solar. So it is also good news for the consumer.

In my speech at the conference in Glasgow I pledged that I would not sign off any deal which represented a public subsidy to new nuclear – and I have kept that pledge. Critics may say that the fact that we will be paying more than the current wholesale price for electricity means there is a subsidy. They will also say that we are giving a longer contract for nuclear than we are giving renewable. But it is important that we compare apples with apples. The wholesale price of electricity does not include the full costs of carbon emissions. People cannot both say that carbon emissions have a long term devastating impact on our economy and environment and then say we should not include the cost of carbon in any comparison. When you do include those full costs then the deal we have signed is cheaper. The reason we are giving nuclear a longer contract than for existing renewable projects is because a nuclear plant will be generating for more than twice as long as a solar or wind project. But if a renewable plant , such as a tidal barrage, lasts a long time we would also give that project a longer contract.

And let’s not forget what a fantastic boost this project is for investment, growth and jobs. Investment of £16 billion on top of the £35 billion investment in our energy infrastructure which has been committed since 2010. And the creation of around 25000 jobs during construction.

This is good news for the economy. Good news for consumers. Good news for energy security. Good news for the environment. Good news for jobs.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeshinkley-point-c-a-big-step-forward-for-energy-decarbonisation-36852.html/feed55Ed Davey MP writes… Labour’s energy policy is a conhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeslabours-energy-policy-is-a-con-36763.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeslabours-energy-policy-is-a-con-36763.html#commentsThu, 17 Oct 2013 10:58:32 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=36763“There is no such thing as a free lunch” was one of the first things I learnt in economics. But it seems that Ed Miliband thinks there is. He seems to believe that you can have freeze energy prices for 20 months with no adverse impacts. It may have seemed a politically smart thing to do leading into the traditional period of energy price increases. But it is likely to have really harmful consequences. In short, it’s a con.

Many commentators have already pointed out that energy companies will be free to increase prices before or after the freeze to compensate. But it will be worse than that. In reality consumers will end up paying more. Energy companies will buy more of their energy in the forward markets but at a premium. Furthermore the uncertainty caused by Labour’s policies will push up the cost of capital for the companies we want to invest £110bn over the next decade. In a letter to the Times small supplier Utilita summed it up “Thanks to Ed Miliband price rises in the energy sector will now be bigger and earlier than they otherwise would have been”

Labour’s energy policy is an incoherent mess. They want to bring back an electricity pool which they abolished in 2001 at a cost estimated by the National Audit Office of £1.4 billion because it ‘operated to the detriment of consumers’. They want to abolish the energy regulator OFGEM which they set up in 2001 because they say its powers aren’t strong enough. But they won’t tell us what extra powers they will give it. And they want to break up the Big 6 even though it was they who allowed the Big 6 to form when there were previously 14 supply companies and 3 generators.

It is no surprise then that there has been almost universal condemnation of the plan – not just from the Big 6. Small energy suppliers – those who are particularly important to promote greater competition – have been particularly scathing. The CEO of the largest of the independent supplier First Utility said “Bluntly it could put me under” whilst the MD of Ovo, the second largest said “It’s not going to help consumers.”

But at least as worrying is the effect Labour’s energy policies will have on investment to keep the lights on and to boost green energy and jobs. The coalition has a superb record in attracting investment into renewable energy – over £35 billion committed since 2010 alone resulting in renewable electricity generated more than doubling from 7% when the coalition government came in to 16% now. We still have a lot to do given the £110 billion black hole in investment which Labour left us.

The combination of the price freeze and Labour’s other energy policies creating uncertainty will mean that investment will drop off for several years at least if Labour were to implement their pledge in 2015. As John Cridland of the CBI has said:

The proposed energy price freeze will deter much needed investment and is at odds with Labour’s pledge to decarbonise the economy and create a million green jobs.

Of course households will be suffering from energy price increases – but let’s not forget that prices went up an average of 10% a year under the last Labour Government – higher than they have under the Coalition Government.

We know that the Tories cannot be trusted to protect the environment. We know that Labour do not understand business and how investment decisions are made. Only the Liberal Democrats understand how important business and the environment are to our country’s future.

Tomorrow I will outline what Liberal Democrats in government are doing to keep down energy bills.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writeslabours-energy-policy-is-a-con-36763.html/feed19Ed Miliband’s speech: 5 thoughts on what it means for Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and the 2015 electionhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-miliband-speech-36384.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-miliband-speech-36384.html#commentsWed, 25 Sep 2013 14:45:17 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=36384I listened to, rather than watched, Ed Miliband’s speech to the Labour party conference yesterday. On the up-side that meant I missed the three hammy mid-speech standing ovations (shades of IDS c.2003); on the down-side it accentuated the peculiar whooping of some of the more excitable delegates (calm down, it’s just a politician talking). In its own terms — getting noticed for its content rather than simply as an impressive no-notes memory feat — it was an undoubted success. Matthew Parris in The Times rather brilliantly captures the flavour:

Crikey — it was wild, it was weird, it was manic, it was a blast! This was so much more than a speech. And so much less. Almost every one of what passed for policy proposals will surely fall apart within days — Life on Mars had come to politics as 1970’s-style wage freezes and a kind of national incomes policy danced before our amazed eyes — but as political theatre this was sensational. We witnessed less of a speech and more a kind of Labour rave. This was Miliband unchained. The star of the show prowled his white triangular platform like an uncaged bear, cracked jokes, jerked tears, tugged heartstrings, hurled abuse . . . and the conference loved it. Yes sir (as he had shouted to an onlooker on Sunday), we really are bringing back socialism. They say conference-hall success usually precedes policy disaster. If so, Ed Miliband will soon be assailed by new criticisms. But one can now be consigned to history. He isn’t boring. Not after yesterday.

Five other thoughts struck me…

Only connect – can Ed in those live TV debates?

Ed Miliband is clearly well capable of connecting with a live audience. The conference hall was in thrall as demonstrated by the relaxed, indulgent laugh he earned for broaching the subject of Labour’s break with the trade unions. As Mark Pack pointed out when Nick Clegg received a similarly warm chuckle of sympathy at last week’s Lib Dem conference, “it’s the little things that give an insight into the real political mood”. Perhaps next year’s special conference, the crunch moment when the Labour leader will ask the movement he leads to relinquish the majority of its union-derived funding, will be a doddle after all. Of course, a pliant conference hall is one thing — can Ed connect with the tough crowd of viewers? TV news shows here rarely check audience appreciation through the real-time electronic ‘worm’, so who knows… But if I was a Tory strategist I wouldn’t be banking on Ed tanking in the televised leaders’ debate(s) after yesterday’s showing.

Can Labour change the terms of debate?

‘The Return of Red Ed’, scream this morning’s newspapers — or at least the Tory-leaning ones do, which is almost all of them minus the Mirror and Guardian. Team Ed are relaxed about that, indeed expected it. As Jonathan Freedland says in The Guardian, “He intends to talk over the heads of the Tory-supporting press, reaching viewers of Watchdog and readers of Which?” It may well work — though as the Lib Dems found in 2010, when the vicious post-Cleggmania onslaught from the press began, the drip-drip of newspaper attacks can take its toll. Their pen-knives will be out in force. Why? Because the 2015 election looks set to offer a clear choice. No longer is Labour led by someone seeking the triangulated centre-ground; Ed Miliband is offering a genuinely left-of-centre choice to the electorate. The Tories’ have assumed they can fight the next election by forcing Labour onto the defensive on immigration, welfare and schools (as well as the economy, obviously). Labour knows they can’t win on the economy, but by focusing instead on real wages, energy bills and housing — three issues reckoned to resonate more strongly — they believe they can neutralise the Tories’ attack.

Energy price freezes: there’s no such thing as a free lunch

How would Tony Blair have done it? He would, I suspect, have cut a deal with the energy companies: promise to freeze your prices for a couple of years and we’ll bung you some extra investment subsidies from the government’s capital pot. He’d have got a big cheer from consumers (who’d see their bills cut) without antagonising business (who wouldn’t pay for it). It’s no accident Ed deliberately chose a more confrontational path. The net saving to consumers is modest — an estimated £120 over 20 months — less than the Tories’ marriage tax allowance, far less than the Lib Dems’ raising of the income tax threshold. It’s a cash hand-out benefiting both rich and poor alike, something for which Labour has often attacked the Lib Dems’ tax-cuts. The difference with energy price-freezes, says Labour, is that these aren’t paid for by the taxpayer. But the reality is they will be, but more opaquely — through lower dividends for energy firm share-holders, including pension funds. “How many Ed Milibands does it take to change a light bulb?” “Why change it? All the lights have gone out.”

One man’s still smiling: Nick Clegg

One man will, I predict, be relaxed about this turn of events: Nick Clegg. The Deputy Prime Minister is the only one of the three party leaders to have staked his strategic position in 2010 and never once deviated course: he will fight the next election by placing the Lib Dems squarely in the centre of British politics. (As I’ve argued before, he has (we have) little choice: it’s where the last election result left us.) “A stronger economy and a fairer society,” we’ll prate, by which we mean “Smarter than Labour, less horrid than the Tories”. The Lib Dems — moderate, fair-minded, sensible — will act as a bulwark against the tendencies of each of the other parties to lurch to the left or drift to the right. For a while it looked like Ed Miliband’s bland, say-nothing approach could muffle that message. Until yesterday.

Austerity? Bored now.

The framework of the 2015 election is taking shape. It’s Labour populism (energy freezes) vs Lib Dem populism (free lunches) vs Conservative populism (tbc). After 5 years of downturn/flatlining, the politicians reckon the electorate wants to see some gain for the pain as the economic recovery begins. In 2010, all the politicians invoked the language of austerity (“cuts bigger than Thatcher’s,” as Alistair Darling warned) — but none of them, us included, spelled out what that meant. In 2015, with the economy growing — along with the UK’s burgeoning debt burden — it seems all the politicians will once again engage in sleight-of-hand, happily pulling rabbits out of hats and awaiting the electorate’s round of applause. Even though the rabbits were paid for by the audience and the hats are on loan. Remember austerity? It’s just so last year.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from May 2007 to Jan 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Now obviously, from an economic liberal perspective, this makes no sense.

Freezing energy costs is precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with the cost of living problem in this country. By freezing income while costs rise in the global upturn & the population expands to require greater supply, Miliband is depriving the energy companies of the capital they need to invest in the expansion of the system.

This will inevitably drive the energy supply industry in the UK, in the shape of OFGEM, into pushing for higher subsidies to expand & maintain the energy supply. Those higher subsidies come, of course, from taxpayer money.

So Labour’s plan will cost less on your bill, but more from the Exchequer, from your taxes. It’s a classic statist solution which hides the real cost to people where they can’t see it. It’s bad and deeply illiberal, both personally & economically.

It also puts the energy industry back into a higher dependency upon the government. Ed Miliband clearly wasn’t joking when he said he wanted to bring socialism back to the UK!

However, although these are both very desirable effects for Labour, this isn’t the really cunning part.

In announcing this 18 months before the next general election, Labour aims to worry the energy companies into a pre-emptive price hike. If the energy suppliers see a price freeze coming, they will inevitably seek to mitigate the risk by raising prices ahead of time.

This then gives Labour the justification to exclaim, with horror, “Look at these price rises. That nasty coalition is doing terribly on the cost of living!”

Thus the entire exercise becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, their plan is awful economics but very good politics. It takes skill to come up with a plan which hurts the very people you claim to be helping, blame the other side and bring both customers and providers under closer state control. Some might call that cynical.

The Liberal way to deal with the cost of energy supplies is longer & more complex, but will work a lot better. It will actually bring down costs.

Firstly, it’s to let prices go where they will. This sounds harsh, but is essential to the success if the second part.

The second part is to remove tax from all forms of energy saving home improvements, and offer the Landlords of rented accommodation tax incentives to install them.

There are also arguments to be made in favour of tying the repayments of such improvements into the house, rather than to the owner of the time, on a manner that has links to the inherent property value increase of a more energy efficient property.

That is a much more sustainable solution to the problem, not a quick fix for electoral gain.

We’ve had quite a lively debate here on Lib Dem Voice on the merits and demerits of fracking (Gilbert, Boddington). In the Observer article Tony Helm suggests that Liberal Democrats have rejected shale gas extraction. As I said not quite.

Tony references Policy Paper 109, Green Growth and Green Jobs, describing it as an “official policy paper.” That is in a sense correct, but it is not “official policy” as most readers of the Observer might conclude from the phrasing. Whether the policy proposals in Green Growth will become official policy will depend on how motion F10: Green Growth and Green Jobs fares at the Autumn conference.

The policy paper does indeed say that the shale gas extraction in the US has caused “significant local environmental damage and pollution of water tables.” It opines, “There is no realistic prospect… of a ‘shale gas revolution’ in the UK.” But the paper doesn’t reject shale gas, an impression a reader might gain from the Observer article.

Instead, the authors of Green Growth present an option that calls for “limited” shale gas extraction, providing environmental safeguards are in place and communities are “fully consulted over extraction and fully compensated for all damage to the local landscape.”

Depending on how the policy motion fares at the Autumn conference, this could be read as a begrudging acceptance of the necessity of fracking. It is certainly not a Lib Dem blast against fracking.

* Andy Boddington is a Lib Dem living in Shropshire, and a former editor for Lib Dem Voice

]]>http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-observer-claims-lib-dems-officially-blast-fracking-no-35879.html/feed22Chris Huhne lands £100k a year job at US energy firm. And why not?http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-lands-100k-a-year-job-at-us-energy-firm-and-why-not-35697.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/chris-huhne-lands-100k-a-year-job-at-us-energy-firm-and-why-not-35697.html#commentsSun, 11 Aug 2013 11:00:53 +0000http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=35697The Independent reports the story of Chris Huhne’s new role:

Disgraced former MP Chris Huhne has been hired as the manager of an energy firm just months after being released from prison. The Government’s ex-energy and climate change cabinet secretary has been working as the European manager of Zilkha Biomass Energy since July, according to the company’s website.

He was jailed in March for eight months along with his ex-wife Vicki Pryce for swapping speeding penalty points so he could avoid a driving ban, but the pair were released in May. The sustainable energy company says on its website that Mr Huhne is tasked with “the remit of growing the business in the European Union”. His new role is reported to be earning him £100,000 a year, the Sun said.

Mr Huhne resigned from the Cabinet when he was charged with perverting the course of justice, and later quit as a Liberal Democrat MP and privy councillor. The point-swapping, which dated back a decade, emerged only when Ms Pryce approached newspapers after Mr Huhne left her for another woman. He has kept a low profile since leaving jail.

I find it hard to get myself worked up about this, despite the inevitable row about the so-called revolving door between Whitehall and business. Assuming he’s following the usual code of conduct to ensure there is no tricky business, then it seems the ideal role for him. It combines the passion and knowledge of an industry he knew long before his cabinet role with his experience of how to get things done in the European Union. You can read his biography at Zilkha’s website here.

As he’s no longer an MP he has to make a new living for himself. Why not doing this? He’s done hubris and nemesis. Perhaps now he’ll find catharsis.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from May 2007 to Jan 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.